al_bowers

Missy,

 

Sorry to hear of your hands. Dealing with advancing age is an issue for all of us (38 years on Hass 500cm). I agree that

my 500cm, 40mm, and P1 P25v is a bit of a handful.

 

That said, one option is an SWC/903. The 38 Biogon is reputed to be a better lens, but the 40 Distagon offers reflex

viewing. I know several friends who use their SWC's hand held as a candid street camera with zone focus. It's less

precise than a V with a 40, which might be an issue with your CFV39. But it allows you to keep your V system gear.

 

Others have offered options are good as well. Eventually, only you can answer your situation. But don't give up.

 

Al Bowers

<p>Any info on E6 processing in the Southern California area? A and I stopped doing E6 a while back (I have a stack of A&I Processing Mailers, bummer). My 15 rolls of E100VS will run out soon (time to move the search for the right MFDB to the front burner)...</p>

<p>Sure looks like a roller or gate problem to me. The image is also taller than a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 (or 6x6) square...<br>

- Al</p>

<p>Sure looks like a roller or gate problem to me. The image is also taller than a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 (or 6x6) square...<br>

- Al</p>

<p>Caroline,</p>

<p>This is pretty clearly not a problem with the clip, or it would appear on the side, not on the top or the bottom. As this is a negative and it appears at the top edge, this means it is the bottom roller. Notice at the other edge (the bottom edge in the images you posted) you can plainly see the small roller which defines the edge of the usable image area. At the top edge in your posted images, the image gets wider. This implies to me that the roller has been moved AWAY from the lens (the lens is covering MORE than the gate should allow). It seems to me that the small roller is missing, allowing light to reach the large diameter roller in the magazine.</p>

<p>My suggestion: I assume you have developed your own film. Take the paper backing and put it onto a spool, and "load" the magazine as normal (including putting the backing paper under the clip when you load the insert). Wind the magazine to frame number 1, as normal. Now, with your magazine removed from the body, pull the dark slide (if you do this with a roll of film, you WILL ruin the film, hence my suggestion to use the backing paper if you can). Now look into the film gate. You should see the backing paper. In a properly adjusted and correctly loaded magazine, the insert and the magazine should be holding the film (backing paper in this case) perfectly FLAT across the entire film gate area (the area that is exposed). My suspicion is that one edge (I believe it is the BOTTOM of the film gate in the magazine) the film will appear to be pulled AWAY from the film gate into the magazine. A part is missing (I suspect a roller) or is misadjusted.</p>

<p>Let us know what you find...</p>

<p>Al Bowers</p>

<p>I've been watching the P series for a while. The P25's have come down in price some, but are in some demand. The P25's can be a little hard to find. The P20 somewhat less so. The sensor is the same for the old CFV's and the P20's, but the software is quite different. Hasselblad has greatly improved their s/w, but Phase was the original gold standard and they remain near the top. David's observations about the old C lenses being problematic is very true. The later CF lenses are much less troublesome. The P20 is square, so vertical/horizontal isn't an issue. The portrait/landscape mode applies to the P25 and other Phase rectangular formats (note this is not possible on the rectangular CFV backs, on these you must tilt the camera). At one point it was speculated that Phase One had 60-70% of the world MFDB market (support and service is a little easier to find than others).</p>

<p>Scott,<br>

This has happened to me on two instances, once years ago when I misloaded the A12 magazine for my 500CM, and the other time in my Rollei TLR when the feed spool was slightly wider than the alloted length by the magazine (plastic vs metal spool).<br>

In the first case, I failed to release the catch at the edge of the A12 insert pressure plate. The film bound when loaded (not being correctly pulled against the pressure plate) and when the leader mangled up, it bound between the magazine insert and the outer case. The result was creasing along the edge for many frames until the leader and film tore and realigned itself correctly for the last couple of frames on the roll.<br>

In the second case, the feed spool had excessive friction and pulled the leader free.<br>

Your problem sounds like the first issue, but your being fastidious about loading makes me suspect it is something else...<br>

Al</p>

<p>Knack,<br>

Not stupid at all. These cameras were designed in another era, and have a different mode of operation. Having spent some time with an 8x10 view camera, the process of making an exposure is so similar. The Hasselblad is a bridge between the past and the present. I find the art of photography to be more intentional this way. Its deliberate. And that they can be made digital as well, well that's just amazing to me.<br>

Al</p>

<p>The V-system cameras (especially the 500 series) tend to be pretty simple and robust. Treat them well, and they will take very good care of you. My trusty old 500CM is 40 next year, and it has served me exceptionally well since the day I bought it in the '70s...<br>

Al Bowers</p>

<p>Mike,<br>

A personal note: I do not personally own a digital back, but I have some experience. I also have a pretty good background in optics and 33 years with the Hasselblad (personal and work).<br>

Crop factor is always (almost exclusively) the size of the CCD chip and the optics. There are a few "families" of chip sizes (they are all close to the same size). 36x36 (were made by Kodak, 16Mp, now discontinued, crop factor of about 1.5x for 6x6), 48x36 (or a little bigger, 22/33/39/50 Mp, mostly Kodak and a few others, crop factor of about 1.1 for 6x4.5, older ones now discontinued, but the larger chips still in production), 44x33 (or a little bigger, 18/30/40 Mp, crop factor of about 1.3 for 6x4.5, older ones now discontinued, but the larger chips still in production), and the 54x41 (or a little smaller, 60/80 Mp, I think these are all Dalsa, crop factor of about 1.0 for 6x4.5, all still in production).<br>

Some people have characterized Phase One as "making noise." My view is that both Hasselblad/Imacon and Phase One/Leaf are top notch. Hasselblad mount their CFV backs in landscape mode. Phase One make their backs to mount both landscape AND portrait mode. Leaf has a rotating system (or used to, don't know about the current Aptus II line). Phase One and Leaf both require an external wire between the lens and the back for shutter sync, which usually proves problematic on the older C series lenses. Some of the CFV backs have issues with the older C series lenses as well.<br>

Note on crop factor: 2.25 inches is 56.25 mm. It turns out almost no manufacturer uses the full 56.25mm spec (I've heard some folks say Mamiya does, but I have never measured a Mamiya with calipers, I have done this on Hasselblad). Hasselblad is a little peculiar in this area, the gate in my camera is about 56mm, but the gate in the film backs are 54mm. I've always used the 54x54 dimension, as that's what the film always used to capture, but I note that most folks are using the 56 mm dimension. To each their own...<br>

Al Bowers</p>

<p>Merv,<br>

I have the 80 and 50 you mention as well (instead of the 120 I have a 150, plus a 40 and a 250). I believe you will find all will give you very pleasing and sharp images. the 50 will be a little less so near close focus, and the 80 will suffer in critical comparison to a 100. All of these are generalizations, there are good and so-so lenses in every batch. but Hasselblad and Zeiss are noted for their above average build and optical quality (for good reason).<br>

As for optimum apertures, over the years i have gotten away from maximizing the depth of field and stop down only as far as necessary for my images. And there are times I intentionally use very shallow depth of fields. My other criteria is to err on the side of as low an f/ stop as I can tolerate, and if it does not matter, I will only stop down two or three stops (to minimize diffraction). I suspect you'll find the 50 will work best near f/8 and the 80 near f/11 (my experience with my lenses in critical work). My 150 can stand going to f/16 though I suspect I am losing a little sharpness. Certainly the 250 works well at f/16.<br>

As for the focus on your 120 (stiff/easy/stiff/easy), it sounds like the focus helicoid has been damaged by having been dropped. I did this once to my 80 a long time ago (1979) and it was only cleared up by repair (the helicoid was replaced). I suggest the 120 visit a competent repair person.<br>

I hope you delight in your Hasselbad for many years, as I have mine...<br>

Best regards,<br>

Al Bowers</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

This is the mask with the focus screen (poor image). You can see how the corners are cut away to clear the four corner screws in the body (the metal frame of the focus screen MUST rest firmly on the four screws for accurate focus). The center is also cut out. The dimensions I got were 2.25 inches on each side, and the corners were cut away 0.5 inches on each side.<br>

Al</p><div></div>

Andrew,

Two pics: first is the mask with the frames lines on it (hard to see while I'm holding it). And second is the mask with the

focus screen (only slightly better). You can see how the corners are cut away to clear the four corner screws in the

body (the metal frame of the focus screen MUST rest firmly on the four screws for accurate focus). The center is also

cut out. The dimensions I got were 2.25 inches on each side, and the corners were cut away 0.5 inches on each side.

Al

<p>Andrew,<br>

I will measure mine tonight and maybe get a picture. Its incredibly easy to make (you only need a ruler, a sharp knife, a pair of scissors, a very fine tip marker, and a piece of clear plastic). You can make one in 2 minutes, literally. I think the square of plastic is about 2.75 inches square, cut the corners off (about 1/2 inch on each side), mark the center 44x33mm frame (or the 42x31mm frame, I made mine the exact dimension), and cut just inside the frame lines with a knife. Then remove your magazine, slide out your finder, drop out the focus screen, drop in your new frame, reassemble your camera, and you should be good to go. Five minutes tops...<br>

I'll get an image (probably pretty bad on my phone camera, lol!) and post.<br>

I don't know too many places that sell these, but that's mostly because they'd have to charge several bucks. And almost everyone makes their own for pennies...<br>

Al</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

A couple of thoughts. I found mounting the mask under the focus screen to work best. HOWEVER, you MUST clip the outside corners to miss the four focus screen screws. If anything gets between these screws and the metal screen frame you will ruin your focus calibration. And further, you MUST cut out the center of the screen to also not mess with the focus on your screen. If you do these two things, the view is clear inside the marks on the mask, it doesn't rattle around, and it works very well.<br>

BTW, Phase One P21 MFDB on an V-system Hasselblad: good choice!<br>

Al Bowers</p>

<p>Guys,<br>

Thanks much. I did not realize, there are three optical designs, and at least four mechanical designs for the 4/40 Distagon over the years. It appears that original CF design had one type of lens barrel and mechanical design, and the CFE had a different lens barrel and mechanical design. Interesting.<br>

One other piece, though the newer CF and IF optical designs are improved over the old 4/40 C, the old 4/40 C was quite a good lens, particularly from the center out to as far as 32mm off-axis. So only the extreme corners have large fall-off (at f/8 anyway) in both resolution and contrast. The CF/CFE and IF are better (the IF rocks in contrast). Of course, wide open the old lens suffers in comparison. But there are places the old lens actually does very well against the newer lenses (e.g.: all at f/8, 40 LP/mm, saggital @ 34mm off-axis: C T=0.56, CF/CFE T=0.26, and IF T=0.60). That IF is a great lens...<br>

Good to know, thanks...<br>

Al</p>

<p>Does anyone have a link or the PDF file for MTF charts of the old 4/40mm C Distagon (T* or non-T*)? I have the MTF charts for the 4/40 CF(E) FLE and the 4/40 CFE IF models, but not for the older C lens. Any help appreciated...<br>

Thanks!<br>

Al Bowers</p>

<p>Paul,<br>

More info:<br>

http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/PDF/HasManuals/KnobMeter.pdf<br>

Regards,<br>

Al Bowers</p>

<p>Paul,<br>

You had asked about the small screw on the knurled part of the meter knob. This small screw allows you to set a small bias in the zero of the meter itself. If you cover the selenium cell, the needle will fall to a "zero" position. You will note the mirror under the needle allows you to make a very accurate assessment of the needle position (this is necessary for some light levels, as can be seen by the width of the black/white stripes to the EV numbers). After letting the needle fall to the extinction level, you can adjust that small screw to precisely line up with the zero mark. Your meter is now set.<br>

The meters were make by Gossen, and I have found my meter knob to be very accurate over the years.<br>

Best regards,<br>

Al Bowers</p>

<p><em>What I'm saying here is that one of the main reasons using medium format is it's quality, but if you can't print it's inherent quality , don't you feel a little frustrated? What do you think?</em><br>

I have to agree with those who use transparencies. A well done slide has astonishing tonal range, depth<br /> and contrast. Prints are not the only high IQ end product of MF. I believe a slide is an acceptable end product with MF.<br>

I have done some work in <em></em>digital, which can rival slides in the above characteristics, and even in resolution at the very high end of MF. I note there are two types of photographers in MF right now, those who are from the old school MF and LF worlds, and those who are coming up from the APS DSLR and FF DSLR worlds. The expectations are quite different. Auto focus, auto exposure, easy handling with near transparent use are very high bars to meet with MFDB hardware right now. Those of us who are from the old school of MF and LF have different handling requirements. High IQ is what we're looking for, and making the sacrifices needed to get that is okay by most of us. Sclepping around several different filter sets and heavy bulky lenses with slow f/-stops and long shutter speeds, so we nee an equally heavy tripod to get the IQ we are striving for is something we're used to.<br>

For the new folks to MF, its different. As a tool, it too has limitations. You will find it frustrating at times. I often feel that way when I can't get the shot because of the MF limitations, and I don't shoot smaller formats any more. My mind set has become too ossified by 30 years of MF and LF work only.<br>

Transparencies, are a completely acceptable end product of MF, IMHO...<br>

Al Bowers</p>

<p>I've delayed responding on this thread for a while, for a few reasons. But here are some thoughts that are counter to the ones expressed above.</p>

<p>Most MFDB makers (including Leaf, even since their acquisition by Phase One) update the firmware of the backs periodically. This is true even on backs that have been out of production for a while. this "continuous product improvement" does keep older backs competitive for a while. It is true the hardware will age quickly, but this relates primarily to write-speed to the memory media, and not so much to issues like color rendition.</p>

<p>Which brings up the big advantage of MFDBs, almost all of them are full 16-bit. I don't know of a single FF DSLR that is a full 16 bit. And every year, the DSLRs get better (they too go through periodic firmware upgrades). And those extra bits give improved dynamic response (in addition to the MFDBs having larger dynamic range simply because of the larger photo-sites). MFDBs give the best of both worlds, more pixels and larger pixels. MFDBs do produce cleaner and smoother images than FF, but they are much slower in doing it.</p>

<p>Some numbers were thrown around regarding the size of sensors. I don't know where those numbers came from (only 23% larger?). When I look at the Leaf Aptus 17, I see a 43.2 x 31.7mm sensor, which is about 56% larger than FF (this is approximately equal to the Phase One P20).</p>

<p>Finally, in direct connection to the Leaf question you asked. I have never used a Leaf. The folks I have talked to who have used Phase One backs and Leaf backs, the Leaf produces images as good as any. But the menus on the Leaf are reported to be rather complex and difficult to follow. Phase One has a "minimalist" approach to menus, so its easy to move through them (though in some cases, you don't get the option you are looking for). The display on the Leaf backs I've seen are excellent, second to none, Phase One displays are also "minimalist".</p>

<p>In the end, you really won't know unless you try MFDBs. in my very limited experience, I like the Phase One devices very much. They work well for me and suit my shooting style. I do find the need to spend time at the computer distracting, I don't get to shoot enough as it is. In this regard I am still breaking away from my film background. I find that while I take many fewer images with MF, I get more "keepers" (images that make me come back for more).</p>

<p>But DSLR FF vs MFDB, I find I like the MFDB for the results it produces. No, there are not many people who can see the difference. Is the price differential worth the difference in image quality? Probably not in any measurable way. But I do find a sense of satisfaction in producing the highest quality images I can, and I can see the difference. The most important customer is yourself. If you aren't happy, then why bother?</p>

<p>-Al Bowers</p>

<p>Kevin, I switched from 35mm to medium format (6x6) in the late 1970s. Shortly after that I also moved into large format (8x10) as well. The "angle of view" used to bother me a lot. But I found after using square a while, the entire issue was moot. I started seeing composition in square, and it didn't matter. I shot transparencies almost exclusively (still do), I didn't make many prints from my slides. You will become accomplished with your new tool set and make it a part of your seeing. And it won't matter what the format or angle of view is. You will adapt to your new photo "reality". My observation is that medium format "feels" wider than the numbers indicate, and there is more "depth" too. I suspect it is the perception that it is the total area that we perceive in the image, not just the width (though I note that humans have laterally displaced eyes so we must perceive space better in "width" than in "height").</p>

<p>I am about to make the jump into digital, and its daunting (especially so in medium format digital). But I love learning new things, and taking on new challenges. It keeps my mind young and fresh (okay, I would like to think so anyway). Embrace the change as a new challenge, and don't look back. Life is too short and the images too fleeting...</p>

<p>Al Bowers</p>

<p>Laurence & Greg, thanks for your replies.</p>

<p>Laurence, I have used Adobe PS and elements some before. I am curious how C1 does against my current experiences. It sounds like there may be advantages to having both...</p>

<p>Greg, I am aware that folks keep saying I can get C1 DB for free. But when I talk to Phase One USA, and mention I just bought one of their MFDBs, they say nothing about this to me. I am told to contact one of their dealers. I find this behavior discouraging as a newcomer. It does not give me confidence. I will mention it again to my "local" dealer and see if they finally allow this newcomer to have the free DB software (I will have to take a day off work and travel a couple hundred miles to my nearest dealer for this).</p>

<p>Thanks guys...</p>

<p>Al</p>

<p>I just bought a used Phase One digital back V-fit for my Hasselblad 500cm. I will need the software to work with the IQ RAW format. I contacted Phase One USA and they directed me to my local dealers (they did not seem particularly helpful or pleased to have a new customer). I can buy Capture One LE (I don't know if this is v4 or v5) for $50 (this seems like a pretty decent price).</p>

<p>I should add, I am an amateur. Landscape and nature mostly. I deliberately choose a Phase One over a CFV by the narrowest of margins (both are outstanding tools, IMHO) but I perceive that battery life is longer with Phase DBs than the CFV. And one of my applications are long distance hikes in wilderness areas, so battery life is an issue for me. I have been a Hasselblad owner for well over 30 years.</p>

<p>My questions:</p>

<p>1/ Is it normal to receive a somewhat "abrupt" response from manufacturers/distributors? I grant you, I bought an old back, no longer made, but still I am a new customer. I thought it a bit strange...</p>

<p>2/ I am looking for the highest quality with reasonable effort in digital workflow. I have a deep respect for those willing to go to extraordinary lengths for the highest quality. I am not quite in that class, but high quality is very important to me. Is Capture One the right tool?</p>

<p>Any comments, suggestions, or pointers deeply appreciated.</p>

<p>Al Bowers</p>

<p>Graham,</p>

<p>I could not agree with you more. Activities which seem the most pleasant to me are those that require a high level of concentration and require my full attention while being "in the moment". That photography also requires higher-order abstract reasoning doesn't hurt in the least. E.g.: thought process goes like this: "exposure to EV11.5, okay...shutter speed to 1/30th...If I'm going to hand-hold I will have to brace carefully or get out the tripod...If I move in a bit closer I can remove that distracting dead branch on that bush, but the perspective isn't quite right then with distant mountains...dang, wrong lens, need the 50mm, set the EV again...unless I use this other bush on the edge of the frame...and...ahhh, yessss...brace on this well placed rock...and breath control...pre-release mirror...KA-FLOP...gently now, breath, exhale and hold..." klik "... OKAY! Now, another for good measure...wind...expose...and DONE. Fold down the waist level, back in the bag...zip closed..."</p>

<p>It has been a while since I exposed silver-halide crystals to sunlight... Something to do this coming weekend... Thanks for the reminder Graham!</p>

<p>Al Bowers</p>